Evangelical Obedience

Status
Not open for further replies.

Justified

Puritan Board Sophomore
From Samuel Rutherford's Communion Sermons, pg. 210-211
God sends not His commandments to us because we have strength to do them. But God seeks that His charge be met with humility. Wherefore, the gospel is a mass of humble commandments; and we sigh because we cannot win up the brae. It is acceptable; providing we creep on hands and feet as we can, it is sweet obedience. Because faith has always in the second covenant the first stroke, and the fore-start, before doing, as being the condition of the covenant, therefore our Lord commands and seeks in the command, that we believe. He will put His Spirit in us, and cause us to do what He craves of us. A father charges his child to bear a burden far above his strength, and threatens him if he obey not. He obeys if he stoop, and mint; and pant; and withal weeps, yet he cannot get it done, and believes that out of love his father will help him. So in opening of our hearts to Jesus; if we but weep, and look up with watery eyes to Christ, and then cry and mint, to open it as we can, using the weak fingers that we have. For though our money wants many grain weights, yet Christ fills the scale of the balance, and weighs down where we want. So Christ's commands to us are commanding promises and promissory commands. He charges us to do (Ezek. xviii. 31), and He promises to work in us what He commands us to do (Ezek. xxxvi. 26, 27)
 
Last edited:

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Bump.

So Christ's commands to us are commanding promises and promissory commands. He charges us to do (Ezek. xviii. 31), and He promises to work in us what He commands us to do (Ezek. xxxvi. 26, 27)
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Bump.

So Christ's commands to us are commanding promises and promissory commands. He charges us to do (Ezek. xviii. 31), and He promises to work in us what He commands us to do (Ezek. xxxvi. 26, 27)
In some Reformed circles, this thinking is scandalous.

Yes; but those who say so are constantly leaping from one side of the river to the other, now an antinomian, then a neonomian; whereas the best thing to do is simply jump in the river and let it carry you downstream.
 

Justified

Puritan Board Sophomore
Rev. Winzer, would you say that the above concept is the principled difference between the law as a CoW and the law as prescribed to the believer instantiated in the CoG? If so, is this the distinction that many in Escandido do not always properly understand in the republication debates?
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Rev. Winzer, would you say that the above concept is the principled difference between the law as a CoW and the law as prescribed to the believer instantiated in the CoG? If so, is this the distinction that many in Escandido do not always properly understand in the republication debates?

It is an important difference, but I would not rate it as the most important. More fundamental is the fact that the law is the rule of life by nature and the law is utilised by the different covenants differently. Without this there could not be a difference between the covenant of grace and works. Republication theorists identify natural law with the "covenant of works" as a "covenant of creation" and thereby exclude the possibility of law being utilised as a part of special providence in different covenantal frameworks. All law as law is made to be a "law of works," which virtually makes evangelical obedience an oxymoron.
 

ZackF

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
whereas the best thing to do is simply jump in the river and let it carry you downstream.

The river is already running....

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.-Ephesians 2:10
 

Justified

Puritan Board Sophomore
Rev. Winzer, would you say that the above concept is the principled difference between the law as a CoW and the law as prescribed to the believer instantiated in the CoG? If so, is this the distinction that many in Escandido do not always properly understand in the republication debates?

It is an important difference, but I would not rate it as the most important. More fundamental is the fact that the law is the rule of life by nature and the law is utilised by the different covenants differently. Without this there could not be a difference between the covenant of grace and works. Republication theorists identify natural law with the "covenant of works" as a "covenant of creation" and thereby exclude the possibility of law being utilised as a part of special providence in different covenantal frameworks. All law as law is made to be a "law of works," which virtually makes evangelical obedience an oxymoron.
Thanks, Rev. Winzer, that was what I was trying to articulate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top